NTP, the company which extracted $612.5 million in its patent infringement lawsuit against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion, is now going after Palm, maker of Treo smart phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) that can send and receive e-mail by way of radio frequency to mobile processors, capabilities that NTP has patented, according to its complaint (link here).

NTPs patent claims continue to be questioned, but the litigation is costly and prolonged.

RIM folded because the threat of losing cast doubt over its continued existence and potential customers decided to buy a different product. Will Treo face the same fate?

Can't we have a bit of an "I'm Spartacus!" strategy here?

How many other little lambs are naively praying the wolf chokes, when they should know the wolf needs regular meals?

Sometimes, though it is rare, a herd of sheep will gang up and chase the wolf out of the field.

Frankly, someone should let the farmer know his flock are in desperate need of an ex-wolf.

A pity we're all birds with no ability to communicate with the farmer.

Let's assume patent laws are unjustified and illegitimate (as I agree they are). But the pejorative term "patent troll" implies there is something wrong with the troll. But there is not: the problem is patent law itself. Patent trolls are no worse than any company asserting its patent rights. It's ridiculous to set up a system of legal monopoly rights and them blame people for using them.

Second, the comment above seems to almost blame the victims of patent suits for not finding a way to fight the patent trolls off. This remark is problematic in two ways. First, it blames the victim. Second, it bizarrely assumes that force of numbers can avoid a result mandated by the law. I don't care if a thousand companies band together to "oppose" a troll--what are they supposed to do? Lobby Congress to change patent law? Barring that, if the patentee has a good patent claim, he may very well prevail at court no matter how much money is spent on mounting a defense. If the commenter above has a concrete proposal as to what threatened potential-infringers ought to do when a patent troll starts picking them off one by one, let's hear it.

I have a mixed feeling about this. Obviously if we set up a system of monopoly rights it is silly to expect people not to make use of them. So for example, local utility companies often have a local monopoly. Predictably that means they provide horrible service at a high price. But I don't see why just because this is predictable we can't complain about it, or even be nasty about it.

On rereading the post I don't think that the victim is being blamed. Obviously from a social perspective it would be better had RIM fought on, but "cast[ing] doubt over its continued existence and [convincing] potential customers ... to buy a different product" seems pretty unarguable as a reason to give in, however said it may make the rest of us.

Apologies for my poor analogy.

The farmer is the framer - that body supposedly acting in the people's interest to institute monopolistic privileges (supposedly in the belief these help entrepreneurs innovate).

I'm suggesting it would be better for all companies infringing a particular troll's patent to collectively challenge the troll even in the expectation that the court will decide in favour of the troll, simply to demonstrate that patent law was as morally bankrupt as they now were financially.

The alternative is for each company to be picked off one at a time, and each time the troll gets strong enough to take on the next larger company, until eventually it takes on the largest, and then moves on to the next patent in its exponentially growing portfolio.

Moreover, neither the framer of the constitution nor the people it serves will notice anything untoward if trolls pick off their victims one at a time. This will simply be ragarded as wholesome economic natural selection.

And yes, trolls are creatures too, but they're unnatural monsters evolved to fit an unnatural environment created through mankind's shortsighted meddling.

Of course it's easy for me to suggest companies all bare their chests to the troll's machine gun at the same time, but wholesale slaughter rather than a tedious series of insolvencies is probably the only thing that's going to make people notice and wonder if perhaps patents aren't the most ethical of weapons businesses should be allowed to play with.

As the original poster here, let me weigh in. The issue with trolls is they are like highway men--they want to extract fees based on questionable IP rights. They succeed because the cost of opposing them in court is higher than paying off. That it seems to me is an excessive extension of their rights. The courts should decide and perhaps the costs should be public and the decision, quick. If we are going to have IP, let's make the system work and the law clearer. Couldn't we define a clear right, not the current ambiguity? Of course, I despair of getting legislation, so perhaps the whole system has to go.

Well, one strategy is to let the public implement the patent - and then you can let the troll have a go at suing the public. Hyuk, hyuk. ;-)

This is sort of poetic justice against software companies who prefer to deny the public the liberty of enjoying their published software.

So, if you're a s/w developer and you discover that some bloody obvious code you reinvented happens to have been patented by a troll, well, you immediately GPL the critical code and anything else that has to be incorporated with it. You modularise this such that you provide a crude/reduced version that avoids infringing the patent.

You then defer to your customers the decision as to whether they'll decide to infringe the patent by independently availing themselves of the GPL module that coincidentally happens to be compatible.

So, who does the troll sue?

Well, if the company really wants to remain associated with their code they might be able enjoy the assistance of the OIN.

Fitch:

I'm suggesting it would be better for all companies infringing a particular troll's patent to collectively challenge the troll even in the expectation that the court will decide in favour of the troll, simply to demonstrate that patent law was as morally bankrupt as they now were financially.

The alternative is for each company to be picked off one at a time, and each time the troll gets strong enough to take on the next larger company, until eventually it takes on the largest, and then moves on to the next patent in its exponentially growing portfolio.

...Of course it's easy for me to suggest companies all bare their chests to the troll's machine gun at the same time, but wholesale slaughter rather than a tedious series of insolvencies is probably the only thing that's going to make people notice and wonder if perhaps patents aren't the most ethical of weapons businesses should be allowed to play with.

You are suggesting it "would be better"... I think this is just kind of an assertion. If you were on the board of one of the companies that is watching a competitor be sued, and thinking you might be in the line of fire some day, you might not want to follow the strategy of some IP policy wonk. YOu might instead want to do what you think is in your own company's interest.

Bennet:

As the original poster here, let me weigh in. The issue with trolls is they are like highway men--they want to extract fees based on questionable IP rights.

But this is no diffrent from what non-trolls do. Being a troll or non-troll has no systematic bearing on whether one's patent is "questionable" or not.

They succeed because the cost of opposing them in court is higher than paying off. That it seems to me is an excessive extension of their rights.

IT "seems"? Okay. But why? Look at it with open eyes. The trolls don't have any worse patents than non-trolls. For both types of patentee, some patents are "questionable," and some are not. This has nothing to do with whether you are a troll or not. What really upsets people is the troll can't be sued back for a patent counter claim. I.e., these people think it is okay if A sues B for patent infringement, if B has a patent he can sue A back with. But if the only time it's fair to use a patent is when the other side has one too and both sides settle and retreat back to the status quo ante more or less... what's the point of the patent system? I mean you seem to be saying that where A sues B and A can't be sued back (which is the case not only for trolls, but for non-trolls who don't happen to engage in an activity patented by the defendant), this is unfair; and it's fair only where both sides are "equal" so would either refuse to sue each otehr or back down.

The courts should decide and perhaps the costs should be public and the decision, quick. If we are going to have IP, let's make the system work and the law clearer.

This is like saying exrement should not stink. The nature of the state is such that what you are asking for is literally impossible. It's one or the other: get rid of it; or have it, and accept all the necessary injustice that comes with it.

Couldn't we define a clear right, not the current ambiguity? Of course, I despair of getting legislation, so perhaps the whole system has to go.

BIN-go.

Fitch:

Well, one strategy is to let the public implement the patent - and then you can let the troll have a go at suing the public. Hyuk, hyuk. ;-)

Well this can happen, if the feds decide to issue a compulsory license, as they threatened to do in the Cipro/anthrax drug case. But they rarely do this. AFter all, this is the same state that granted the patent monopoly. They are in favor of granting patent monopolies. Why think they would text to highlightwant to take it back?

Well, if an IP policy wonk's strategy was actually sound and in the best interests of the company, the embarrassment of adopting such a strategy should just about be endurable and forgivable by the shareholders.

If it isn't endurable, well, that's quite an achievement: to render an otherwise sound strategy untenable simply by dint of association.

;-)

One of the strengths of the human being is its ability to suspend a highly competitive nature to collaborate against a common enemy or toward a common cause (unless it gets the slightest whiff that it was some wonk's idea).

Anyway, what I mean by "The public implementing the patent" is the same as "The public diffusing the copyrighted work".

If all patent infringing software is instantaneously available, and all new software, irrespective of infringement, can be anonymously deposited into such an instantaneous diffusion mechanism, then patent holders will find themselves in precisely the same position as the RIAA. They have the option of legally justified random sniping - if they really want to punish the public for enjoying the effective restoration of their liberty.

Stephan's comment highlights one of the reasons I prefer abolition to reform. There is a strong element of "patents for me not you" in reform proposals. That is, my patents are my intellectual right - you on the other hand are a horrible patent troll. A lot of proposal for reform read like: it's ok for "good" people like microsoft and IBM to have patents, but a little guy is obviously just a troll. If we got rid of all patents the issue of who was a troll wouldn't arise.

I think Stephan's comments also highlight that the problem isn't simply patents, but in many respects with the court system. Anyone with either the money for lawyers, or who has access to or is a lawyer, can create an enormous amount of harm by pursuing valueless claims. This isn't only true for patents.

On the other hand - what we see of a lot of is some guy gets a patent for something they didn't really do, claiming the sun and the moon and the stars - can't possibly enforce the thing in a real legal battle, then goes around trying to pick people off one by one. That's what these patent troll posts are about. Do we have to say this is a good thing? Should we not admire firms that - perhaps not in their own profit maximizing interest - choose to stand up to this? Do we not want reforms to the system that make it harder for the trolls to do this, and easier for the victims to fight back?